Including this season,

[Coug1990]

The uw is 37-14 overall and 25-10 in conference the last four seasons. During the same period, WSU is 36-14 and 26-9. I write this because in listening to the radio here in Seattle, a few of the hosts give the coaching edge to Petersen.

I believe that over that time, the uw has had more talent. They have had numerous high draft picks (many of them were signed by Sarkisian). Yes, the uw has had WSU's number and I think they were a little better. But, I believe that Leach is better than a lot of people believe and Petersen is not quite as good as most people believe.

 

[Cougatron]

I think Petersen is a good coach, but he was handed a program with an embarrassment of riches. UW is the number #2 athletic revenue program in the conference behind only USC.

They had always laughably underperformed for what they had.

Petersen came in with a great defense was loaded with 4/5 stars. If you are just competent you should do well, and the truth is Petersen is competent.

But between Leach and Petersen I think there is no question on who is better.

Could Petersen come in and do what Leach did for is at WSU in 7 years? I don’t think so.

Could Leach do what Petersen has done? Absolutely. So to me the debate really sorts itself with that question.

Petersen walked into a program at Boise that already had a winning structure. This goes all the way back to Hawkins.

Dan Hawkins went 12-1, 13-1.11-1
Dick Koetter went 10-3/10-2 before that in 1999/2000.

So for the last 20 years Boise has been a successful program with double digit wins. BEFORE he was HC. The program structure was built. He is a competent coach, but he just ironed out the few wrinkles and continued on.

Building a program from 9-40 and the smallest budget in the conference in the most remote location to 10-1 is way way harder then walking into the second richest program in the conference and taking a 7-8 win team loaded with 4/5 stars to 10 wins.

That’s like comparing someone who turned a Honda Accord into a drag racer
Vs someone who was given a Corvette.

I think as more players graduate from UW they will slowly decline. If Kwiatkowski leaves Petersen is on life support.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Agree with both comments above, but until we actually beat the mutts, I don't think it makes much sense to argue about Leach being better than Peterson. I'm planning on that ending tomorrow so we can officially start hanging crap on the mutts for a full revolution around the sun.

 

[kougkurt]

The uw is 37-14 overall and 25-10 in conference the last four seasons. During the same period, WSU is 36-14 and 26-9. I write this because in listening to the radio here in Seattle, a few of the hosts give the coaching edge to Petersen.

I believe that over that time, the uw has had more talent. They have had numerous high draft picks (many of them were signed by Sarkisian). Yes, the uw has had WSU's number and I think they were a little better. But, I believe that Leach is better than a lot of people believe and Petersen is not quite as good as most people believe.

Great stat You could win a lot of money playing true or false with that.

 

[Coug1990]

I think Petersen is a good coach, but he was handed a program with an embarrassment of riches. UW is the number #2 athletic revenue program in the conference behind only USC.

They had always laughably underperformed for what they had.

Petersen came in with a great defense was loaded with 4/5 stars. If you are just competent you should do well, and the truth is Petersen is competent.

But between Leach and Petersen I think there is no question on who is better.

Could Petersen come in and do what Leach did for is at WSU in 7 years? I don’t think so.

Could Leach do what Petersen has done? Absolutely. So to me the debate really sorts itself with that question.

Petersen walked into a program at Boise that already had a winning structure. This goes all the way back to Hawkins.

Dan Hawkins went 12-1, 13-1.11-1
Dick Koetter went 10-3/10-2 before that in 1999/2000.-

So for the last 20 years Boise has been a successful program with double digit wins. BEFORE he was HC. The program structure was built. He is a competent coach, but he just ironed out the few wrinkles and continued on.

Building a program from 9-40 and the smallest budget in the conference in the most remote location to 10-1 is way way harder then walking into the second richest program in the conference and taking a 7-8 win team loaded with 4/5 stars to 10 wins.

That’s like comparing someone who turned a Honda Accord into a drag racer
Vs someone who was given a Corvette.

I think as more players graduate from UW they will slowly decline. If Kwiatkowski leaves Petersen is on life support.

I have had similar conversations with uw fans over the years. They believe that Petersen built BSU even though they had the same records before he took over. The media act like Peteresen built the uw from the ashes. Sarkisian is the one who took over a horrible program and did the heavy lifting. They went 9-4 Sarkisian's last season.

Petersen is good to very good. But, so is Leach

 

[Cougzz]

I have had similar conversations with uw fans over the years. They believe that Petersen built BSU even though they had the same records before he took over. The media act like Peteresen built the uw from the ashes. Sarkisian is the one who took over a horrible program and did the heavy lifting. They went 9-4 Sarkisian's last season.

Petersen is good to very good. But, so is Leach

The best thing to happen to uw over the last quarter century was when the patron saint of UW Football, Pat Haden, hired away Sark.

 

[dgibbons]

The best thing to happen to uw over the last quarter century was when the patron saint of UW Football, Pat Haden, hired away Sark.

The rumor was Sark’s offield issues were catching up to him and he was going to be out at uw anyway. Recall that uw had a pretty much empty recruiting class.

 

[425cougfan]

If he's such a magician, I'm wondering how he only went 8-5 his final season in Boise. He picked a good time to get out of town. To be clear, I think Petersen is a good coach. I don't think he's some kind of irreplaceable genius, though. His reputation exceeds his actual competence.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Leach is the best coach in the nation. Not just football, basketball too. Yes, I know he doesnt coach basketball. But he should.

 

[chipdouglas]

I believe that over that time, the uw has had more talent. They have had numerous high draft picks (many of them were signed by Sarkisian). Yes, the uw has had WSU's number and I think they were a little better. But, I believe that Leach is better than a lot of people believe and Petersen is not quite as good as most people believe.

The talent gap is something that ought to get more recognition, but fan culture doesn't allow for much of it. Nothing less satisfying than backing a Husky fan down after another AC blowout by talking about recruiting stars.

But it is a fair point: in 2018, UW is a borderline Top 20 NFL pipeline school (#21, actually). By contrast, WSU is tied with Appalachian State and Middle Tennessee (!), and somehow less productive than teams like Wyoming, Tulane, Western Kentucky etc.

Schools with our level of talent have to be on in every game. Unlike SC, UW or formerly Oregon, we can't muscle past lesser opponents (Portland State anyone? EWU? Wyoming?). WSU has to out-scheme and out-execute and out-effort the other guys for every win. There are no free games where our 3-deep of 4+ stars will carry us. SC has been rudderless for 5 years and they've still averaged a 9-10 win season in that time. With WSU's roster that's 4 wins. We must bring our A game to the Apple Cup to win, and still have a few chips fall favorably. Mutts are still in it with their B- game. We just don't have that luxury.

Frankly, UW should be embarrassed any year they don't beat us, and happy but "in perspective" when they do (which is of course something we don't see).

The Cubs' payroll is more than 20x that of the TB Rays. If they played once a year, I'd hope they'd appreciate that context - even if water cooler fandom scarcely allows for that kind of humility.

 

[Cougsocal]

Lest we forget, Leach did virtually all of it on frightening good talent evaluation, i.e. doing much better homework. 10-1 with guys virtually the entire Pac-12 concluded weren't good enough for them. Petersen success is based essentially on kids that most of the conference coverted, and only USC passed on. It is easy to win when there are 500 kids, and you get to pick 25 out of the last 475, the UW effectively. Its much harder to win when you get to pick 25 out of the last 250 or 225, WSU under Leach, until this year.

Walden described recruiting accurately when he likened it to a watering hole. The lion gets to spend all the times he wants at the hole, and eat only what he wants. the bear nearly as long and mostly what he wants, wolves a lttle less. WSU in recruiting is the deer at the watering hole.

 

[Cougatron]

Walden described recruiting accurately when he likened it to a watering hole. The lion gets to spend all the times he wants at the hole, and eat only what he wants. the bear nearly as long and mostly what he wants, wolves a lttle less. WSU in recruiting is the antelope at the watering hole.

And this is why Walden is an 0-12 coach in his last year.

Recruiting is not a watering hole.

Recruiting is building relationships, and opportunities.

USC has better recruiting relationships and boasts better opportunities. That's why they recruit well.
Oregon better recruiting relationships (Nike), boasts better opportunities (fancy Nike Uniforms). That's why they recruit well.

We had a Graduate Transfer to Alabama. Tell Nick Saban he wasn't coming and choose us.

Why did we get that? Building a relationship, and creating an opportunity for a player like Minshew.

It's not a watering hole. That is like the most loser way of thinking. That's like Wulff saying "Well you can't recruit Lineman to Pullman" BULLSH*T TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULLSH*T.

If that were the case we wouldn't be stonewalling rushes and D-Line with our national award nominated O-line.

As the recruiter YOU are the one who brings the talent to the program. YOU have to go out find them, evaluate, and convince them to come. YOU do that. They don't just come to you. YOU have to go get them.

If you are lazy and expect them to just walk through the door. You are an idiot. a 0-10 Walden idiot

 

[PINGDUDE4]

Not to pile on but it would hard to envision how Petersen will ever coach more NFL type talent than he has the last few seasons at UW.

Since the 2015 draft, UW has the following tallies >

5 - First Round Picks

5- Second Round Picks

6- Other round Picks

Those are Alabama like numbers. That type of talent cycling through any program should produce some nice seasons. UW has no doubt had some nice seasons and have this year as well, but other than Apple Cup dominance not sure exactly what they have to show for all of that NFL talent.. They were fortunate in their one conference championship that they did not have to replay USC in the conference championship as when they played the Trojans at home that year it was not pretty.

It would not be surprising in the least if they again get by WSU to see them get smoked either by Utah or Ohio State . That seems to be where they are right now as a program. As much of a hurdle UW is for WSU, UW also has the hurdle of beating any team not named WSU in a meaningful games. The Seattle Radio and other press must be highly charitable to Petersen/UW not to point out some those obvious flaws .

From stuff I've read here it is too bad Mack Brown did not coach at UW. He was the master of beating other teams when he had more talent, but where he fell down was beating the more equally matched teams in meaningful games. He was unfortunate to coach at a place where the fan base and press did not give him a pass for those shortcomings like apparently Petersen gets in Seattle.

 

[etowncoug]

It's undoubtedly more difficult to recruit to Pullman than anywhere else in the conference, but Leach has taken the challenge head on. Same with Price.

Walden and Doba were excuse factories.

And this is why Walden is an 0-12 coach in his last year.

Recruiting is not a watering hole.

Recruiting is building relationships, and opportunities.

USC has better recruiting relationships and boasts better opportunities. That's why they recruit well.
Oregon better recruiting relationships (Nike), boasts better opportunities (fancy Nike Uniforms). That's why they recruit well.

We had a Graduate Transfer to Alabama. Tell Nick Saban he wasn't coming and choose us.

Why did we get that? Building a relationship, and creating an opportunity for a player like Minshew.

It's not a watering hole. That is like the most loser way of thinking. That's like Wulff saying "Well you can't recruit Lineman to Pullman" BULLSH*T TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULLSH*T.

If that were the case we wouldn't be stonewalling rushes and D-Line with our national award nominated O-line.

As the recruiter YOU are the one who brings the talent to the program. YOU have to go out find them, evaluate, and convince them to come. YOU do that. They don't just come to you. YOU have to go get them.

If you are lazy and expect them to just walk through the door. You are an idiot. a 0-10 Walden idiot

 

[Coug1990]

Not to pile on but it would hard to envision how Petersen will ever coach more NFL type talent than he has the last few seasons at UW.

Since the 2015 draft, UW has the following tallies >

5 - First Round Picks

5- Second Round Picks

6- Other round Picks

Those are Alabama like numbers. That type of talent cycling through any program should produce some nice seasons. UW has no doubt had some nice seasons and have this year as well, but other than Apple Cup dominance not sure exactly what they have to show for all of that NFL talent.. They are fortunate in their one conference championship that they did not have to replay USC in the conference championship as when they played the Trojans at home that year it was not pretty.

It would not be surprising in the least if they again get by WSU to see them get smoked either by Utah or Ohio State . That seems to be where they are right now as a program. As much of a hurdle UW is for WSU, UW also has a hurdle of beating any team not named WSU in a meaningful game.

This is the biggest reason why the uw has beaten WSU the last several Apple Cups. I think for the first time, the talent level is much closer then at any time since Petersen and Leach have been at the uw and WSU.

 

[mikalalas]

There is a misperception, accidental false narrative, revisionism by coug fans and others that WSU can't recruit well, and hasnt recruited well at any point during Leach's Tenure as HC at WSU, and that Leach is supposedly just, only a good evaluator, developer, and not a good recruiter.

Leach's recruits are, is, have been typically high end 3 star, low end 4 star recruit. In Rival's recruit ranking system, ranging from NR to 5.5 to 6.0+,above,etc, the 4 star recruit line starts at 5.7,5.8. A 5.7, 5.8 is a low end 4 star recruit. A 5.5, 5.6 is a high end 3 star recruit. Somewhere between most to almost all Leach's recruits, have been 5.5,5.6,5.7,5.8 high end 3 star, low end 4 star recruits.

Also Leach beats out other good teams, flips other good teams, recruits.

Examples would be Borghi, a high end 3 star, Jamire Calvin a low end 4 star, Drue Jackson a low end 4 star.

Another thing that happens a lot, is that often a Leach 2 star, 3 star recruit gets bumped, upgraded up 1 star, making 2, 3 star recruits into 3, 4 star recruits.

Another thing that happens is Leach recruits often get many offers from the blue blood programs, after leach offers, gets the verbal, but despite that Leach often still beats them out, gets the commit, signing over the blue blood offer programs.

Another thing that fans others dont get:

Is fans, others will look at WSU, Leach's, last 1,2 years classes, see the 40th to 60th ranking, 11th out of pac 12 ranking and wrongly think WSU's, Leach's recruiting class sucks.

They dont see that the class has almost all 3 star, 4 stars, 9 to 17 high end 3 stars, 5.5,5.6's, 3,4,5,6,7 low end 4 stars(5.7's, upgraded 3 stars, into 4 stars)only 1,2,3 2 stars, only 1,2,3 NR

They only see that the above type class is typically ranked about 40th to 60th, 11th in pac 12.

Some may think, how can such a good WSU class be ranked so low?

The answer is if you took the above exampled class, put it into a time machine, took it back to the 80's, 90's, the class would probably be ranked about 23 at best to 33rd at worst, and would probably be about ranked 4th to 7th in Pac 10.

Pac 12 recruiting has gotten good enough that one could recruit a 9 to 17 3 stars, 4 to 8 4 stars, 39th ranked class, and still only be ranked 10th, 11th in Pac 12.

This is why one can't, should not go by national, Pac 12 recruiting ranks, in determing whether WSU, Leach, is recruiting good, and whether the class sucks or not.

Instead you go by:

If the WSU, Leach class has lots of 3 stars, 4 stars that Leach beat out blue blood programs for.

If the WSU Leach class has lots pf recruits that were offered lots of offers by blue blood programs

If WSU Leach class has had a lot of its recruits upgraded from 2,3 stars, to 3,4 stars.

Going by those things, WSU, Leach has been a very good recruiter. He has recruited 3,4 stars. His recruits have a lot of offers from blue blood programs. He has beat out good programs for good 3,4 star recruits. His recruits have been upgraded to 3,4 stars from 2,3 stars

Going by that, Leach is, has been a very good recruiting HC for WSU

 

[chipdouglas]

There is a misperception, accidental false narrative, revisionism by coug fans and others that WSU can't recruit well, and hasnt recruited well at any point during Leach's Tenure as HC at WSU, and that Leach is supposedly just, only a good evaluator, developer, and not a good recruiter.

Leach's recruits are, is, have been typically high end 3 star, low end 4 star recruit. In Rival's recruit ranking system, ranging from NR to 5.5 to 6.0+,above,etc, the 4 star recruit line starts at 5.7,5.8. A 5.7, 5.8 is a low end 4 star recruit. A 5.5, 5.6 is a high end 3 star recruit. Somewhere between most to almost all Leach's recruits, have been 5.5,5.6,5.7,5.8 high end 3 star, low end 4 star recruits.

Also Leach beats out other good teams, flips other good teams, recruits.

Examples would be Borghi, a high end 3 star, Jamire Calvin a low end 4 star, Drue Jackson a low end 4 star.

Another thing that happens a lot, is that often a Leach 2 star, 3 star recruit gets bumped, upgraded up 1 star, making 2, 3 star recruits into 3, 4 star recruits.

Another thing that happens is Leach recruits often get many offers from the blue blood programs, after leach offers, gets the verbal, but despite that Leach often still beats them out, gets the commit, signing over the blue blood offer programs.

Another thing that fans others dont get:

Is fans, others will look at WSU, Leach's, last 1,2 years classes, see the 40th to 60th ranking, 11th out of pac 12 ranking and wrongly think WSU's, Leach's recruiting class sucks.

They dont see that the class has almost all 3 star, 4 stars, 9 to 17 high end 3 stars, 5.5,5.6's, 3,4,5,6,7 low end 4 stars(5.7's, upgraded 3 stars, into 4 stars)only 1,2,3 2 stars, only 1,2,3 NR

They only see that the above type class is typically ranked about 40th to 60th, 11th in pac 12.

Some may think, how can such a good WSU class be ranked so low?

The answer is if you took the above exampled class, put it into a time machine, took it back to the 80's, 90's, the class would probably be ranked about 23 at best to 33rd at worst, and would probably be about ranked 4th to 7th in Pac 10.

Pac 12 recruiting has gotten good enough that one could recruit a 9 to 17 3 stars, 4 to 8 4 stars, 39th ranked class, and still only be ranked 10th, 11th in Pac 12.

This is why one can't, should not go by national, Pac 12 recruiting ranks, in determing whether WSU, Leach, is recruiting good, and whether the class sucks or not.

Instead you go by:

If the WSU, Leach class has lots of 3 stars, 4 stars that Leach beat out blue blood programs for.

If the WSU Leach class has lots pf recruits that were offered lots of offers by blue blood programs

If WSU Leach class has had a lot of its recruits upgraded from 2,3 stars, to 3,4 stars.

Going by those things, WSU, Leach has been a very good recruiter. He has recruited 3,4 stars. His recruits have a lot of offers from blue blood programs. He has beat out good programs for good 3,4 star recruits. His recruits have been upgraded to 3,4 stars from 2,3 stars

Going by that, Leach is, has been a very good recruiting HC for WSU

If you had to distill your point into, let's just say, <20 paragraphs, what would it be?

Are you really saying that Leach's classes were actually more talented than Rivals, Scout, ESPN and 247 ever gave them? It sounds like that plus "our lows aren't as low" but there is just no quantitative evidence of that unless you're referring to your own personal scouting report.

Also, forget high school stars: how about putting guys into the NFL like I said above? That's likely a better indicator of the value a player brought in his college career than HS stars, and WSU does not exactly pass this test with flying colors.

 

[425cougfan]

There is a misperception, accidental false narrative, revisionism by coug fans and others that WSU can't recruit well, and hasnt recruited well at any point during Leach's Tenure as HC at WSU, and that Leach is supposedly just, only a good evaluator, developer, and not a good recruiter.

Leach's recruits are, is, have been typically high end 3 star, low end 4 star recruit. In Rival's recruit ranking system, ranging from NR to 5.5 to 6.0+,above,etc, the 4 star recruit line starts at 5.7,5.8. A 5.7, 5.8 is a low end 4 star recruit. A 5.5, 5.6 is a high end 3 star recruit. Somewhere between most to almost all Leach's recruits, have been 5.5,5.6,5.7,5.8 high end 3 star, low end 4 star recruits.

Also Leach beats out other good teams, flips other good teams, recruits.

Examples would be Borghi, a high end 3 star, Jamire Calvin a low end 4 star, Drue Jackson a low end 4 star.

Another thing that happens a lot, is that often a Leach 2 star, 3 star recruit gets bumped, upgraded up 1 star, making 2, 3 star recruits into 3, 4 star recruits.

Another thing that happens is Leach recruits often get many offers from the blue blood programs, after leach offers, gets the verbal, but despite that Leach often still beats them out, gets the commit, signing over the blue blood offer programs.

Another thing that fans others dont get:

Is fans, others will look at WSU, Leach's, last 1,2 years classes, see the 40th to 60th ranking, 11th out of pac 12 ranking and wrongly think WSU's, Leach's recruiting class sucks.

They dont see that the class has almost all 3 star, 4 stars, 9 to 17 high end 3 stars, 5.5,5.6's, 3,4,5,6,7 low end 4 stars(5.7's, upgraded 3 stars, into 4 stars)only 1,2,3 2 stars, only 1,2,3 NR

They only see that the above type class is typically ranked about 40th to 60th, 11th in pac 12.

Some may think, how can such a good WSU class be ranked so low?

The answer is if you took the above exampled class, put it into a time machine, took it back to the 80's, 90's, the class would probably be ranked about 23 at best to 33rd at worst, and would probably be about ranked 4th to 7th in Pac 10.

Pac 12 recruiting has gotten good enough that one could recruit a 9 to 17 3 stars, 4 to 8 4 stars, 39th ranked class, and still only be ranked 10th, 11th in Pac 12.

This is why one can't, should not go by national, Pac 12 recruiting ranks, in determing whether WSU, Leach, is recruiting good, and whether the class sucks or not.

Instead you go by:

If the WSU, Leach class has lots of 3 stars, 4 stars that Leach beat out blue blood programs for.

If the WSU Leach class has lots pf recruits that were offered lots of offers by blue blood programs

If WSU Leach class has had a lot of its recruits upgraded from 2,3 stars, to 3,4 stars.

Going by those things, WSU, Leach has been a very good recruiter. He has recruited 3,4 stars. His recruits have a lot of offers from blue blood programs. He has beat out good programs for good 3,4 star recruits. His recruits have been upgraded to 3,4 stars from 2,3 stars

Going by that, Leach is, has been a very good recruiting HC for WSU

Not to be overly confrontational, but this is bullshit. You're just making excuses and giving your own false narrative if I'm reading this correctly (I have a hard time understanding what this massive wall of text is trying to argue).

WSU recruiting under Leach is, by the numbers, among the worst in the Pac-12 over his tenure. Certainly in the bottom 1/3. Yes, he's flipped some players, and many of his recruits have offers from other Power 5 schools, but that's not unique to him or not reflected in his classes' ranks or his recruits' rankings. Same thing happens at other schools who rank in the same area or more highly.

Instead, what you call false, the point that he's done a great job at talent evaluation, instead is true. He's also done a great job at developing players, coaching, recruiting for needs, having an offense that overcomes skill disparities, having his players stay healthy, and getting players with the correct mindset to execute for him and win.

If his classes rank 40th-60th nationally, it is what it is. Your argument about the Pac-12 improving its recruiting such that the same classes would have ranked from 23rd to 33rd, and from 4th to 7th in the Pac-10, has no backing.

A couple things that I think you may be trying to say, though, that (i) many three-star recruits, especially high three-star recruits, are quite good, and/or (ii) Leach has classes full of legitimate Pac-12 athletes, even if they don't rank highly within the Pac-12 (or nationally), I agree completely. His classes are full of legitimate Pac-12 players, most of which have other Power 5 offers. In this regard, his recruiting is good enough to win and much better than what we were seeing a decade ago. I think it's fair to say he and his staff are good recruiters given the situation. All of that BS about the rankings being inaccurate somehow, though, or claiming that he is a "very good" recruiter because he flipped a couple kids from other Power 5 schools, is just that. The recruiting is solid but not great and its place in the Pac-12 is accurate, just going by the numbers/rankings and ignoring his apparently superior talent evaluation (which, I believe, would miss the point).

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Not to be overly confrontational, but this is bullshit. You're just making excuses and giving your own false narrative if I'm reading this correctly (I have a hard time understanding what this massive wall of text is trying to argue).

WSU recruiting under Leach is, by the numbers, among the worst in the Pac-12 over his tenure. Certainly in the bottom 1/3. Yes, he's flipped some players, and many of his recruits have offers from other Power 5 schools, but that's not unique to him or not reflected in his classes' ranks or his recruits' rankings. Same thing happens at other schools who rank in the same area or more highly.

Instead, what you call false, the point that he's done a great job at talent evaluation, instead is true. He's also done a great job at developing players, coaching, recruiting for needs, having an offense that overcomes skill disparities, having his players stay healthy, and getting players with the correct mindset to execute for him and win.

If his classes rank 40th-60th nationally, it is what it is. Your argument about the Pac-12 improving its recruiting such that the same classes would have ranked from 23rd to 33rd, and from 4th to 7th in the Pac-10, has no backing.

A couple things that I think you may be trying to say, though, that (i) many three-star recruits, especially high three-star recruits, are quite good, and/or (ii) Leach has classes full of legitimate Pac-12 athletes, even if they don't rank highly within the Pac-12 (or nationally), I agree completely. His classes are full of legitimate Pac-12 players, most of which have other Power 5 offers. In this regard, his recruiting is good enough to win and much better than what we were seeing a decade ago. I think it's fair to say he and his staff are good recruiters given the situation. All of that BS about the rankings being inaccurate somehow, though, or claiming that he is a "very good" recruiter because he flipped a couple kids from other Power 5 schools, is just that. The recruiting is solid but not great and its place in the Pac-12 is accurate, just going by the numbers/rankings and ignoring his apparently superior talent evaluation.

Who'd have thunk that I would be regarded as the guy who makes short posts?

 

[425cougfan]

And this is why Walden is an 0-12 coach in his last year.

Recruiting is not a watering hole.

Recruiting is building relationships, and opportunities.

USC has better recruiting relationships and boasts better opportunities. That's why they recruit well.
Oregon better recruiting relationships (Nike), boasts better opportunities (fancy Nike Uniforms). That's why they recruit well.

We had a Graduate Transfer to Alabama. Tell Nick Saban he wasn't coming and choose us.

Why did we get that? Building a relationship, and creating an opportunity for a player like Minshew.

It's not a watering hole. That is like the most loser way of thinking. That's like Wulff saying "Well you can't recruit Lineman to Pullman" BULLSH*T TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULLSH*T.

If that were the case we wouldn't be stonewalling rushes and D-Line with our national award nominated O-line.

As the recruiter YOU are the one who brings the talent to the program. YOU have to go out find them, evaluate, and convince them to come. YOU do that. They don't just come to you. YOU have to go get them.

If you are lazy and expect them to just walk through the door. You are an idiot. a 0-10 Walden idiot

I agree recruiting mainly is about relationships (especially with primary recruiters), but man, using Minshew as the example is pretty rich. How many times have you read the story where Leach's first contact with him was calling up and asking if he wanted to lead the country in passing, and he was pretty much on board right on the spot? If that's building a relationship, a lot of relationship are built on Tinder or at closing time in bars around the country.

All those schools you mention have a lot more than relationships going for them vis-a-vis WSU, and that's why we've seen WSU have recruiting challenges for a long time, even with a potential Hall of Fame coach like Leach at the helm. I agree with Walden being a loser and that Leach rejects that loser mentality, but I think it's disingenuous to act like in many cases the bigger, better-positioned programs can't have their pick of players. I'm sure Leach would like to have some of USC's wide receiver recruits if he could, and we've all seen examples of "better" programs swooping in and stealing commits late in the game with nothing going for them other than cool uniforms or a bigger brand name.

 

[Cougatron]

I agree recruiting mainly is about relationships (especially with primary recruiters), but man, using Minshew as the example is pretty rich. How many times have you read the story where Leach's first contact with him was calling up and asking if he wanted to lead the country in passing, and he was pretty much on board right on the spot? If that's building a relationship, a lot of relationship are built on Tinder or at closing time in bars around the country.

All those schools you mention have a lot more than relationships going for them vis-a-vis WSU, and that's why we've seen WSU have recruiting challenges for a long time, even with a potential Hall of Fame coach like Leach at the helm. I agree with Walden being a loser and that Leach rejects that loser mentality, but I think it's disingenuous to act like in many cases the bigger, better-positioned programs can't have their pick of players. I'm sure Leach would like to have some of USC's wide receiver recruits if he could, and we've all seen examples of "better" programs swooping in and stealing commits late in the game with nothing going for them other than cool uniforms or a bigger brand name.

The Polynesian pipeline that brought in Vaeo, Tago, Luvu.

How’s that for relationship curating. Leach hired Salavae to do specifically that.

Leach also developed pipelines into Los Angeles with guys like Simmons and Manning.

In San Diego lines were established with Grinch.

Leach knows exactly what he is doing in establishing connections and relationships, but he does that through putting assistants into regions they can excel.

It’s not a surprise that Hal Mumme is in Mississippi and tipped off Leach to Minshew.

Leach’s relationships aren’t with the individual player. They are through his connections /assistants.

It’s a tentacle strategy. Not a “who does USC offer well I will compete with them for that guy. Golly gee wilikers ever thought of being an antelope!?!”

Leach uses his assistants / connections as tentacles to siphon players back to the program.

I’ll give you another player. McDougle. Here is a D lineman whose father played for Leach, that played for Leach’s disciple holgerson and ended up at WSU redshirting this year.

Where was USC the lion at the watering hole on him? No where to be seen.

And that’s because relationships and network can trump anything the recruiting services/blue bloods do.

Relationships/Network > BlueBlood automatic attention.

If....if you can tell who can play and who can’t. Which Leach can.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

The best thing to happen to uw over the last quarter century was when the patron saint of UW Football, Pat Haden, hired away Sark.

Haden hired Helton after hiring, then firing, Sark. At this point there are not a lot of SC Alums here that view him as a "patron saint". Give him a little credit; he got them through the sanctions period. But his choices and management skills were mediocre at best. Swann thus far has not distinguished himself. His choice to replace Helton will probably be his primary legacy, one way or the other. Swann was a great football player and by all reports was a positive force in the locker room. But he had zero experience with the bread and butter of what he does daily in the AD job, and I suspect that history will view him as a poor selection. His shot at avoiding that sort of legacy is the upcoming football HC hire. The fact that Kelly is now at UCLA puts even more pressure on Swann.

As for Haden helping the UW by hiring away Sark, I'm not sure that is true. You might look at Sark as a time bomb from a drinking standpoint, but did anyone view Mike Price the same way? One less move, additional stability in his home life...who knows if Sark would have gone over the edge if he had stayed in Seattle? I'm not sure that Price would have gone over the edge if he had stayed in Pullman, and the reasoning is similar (not identical, but similar). As was pointed out earlier in this thread, Peterson benefitted from Sark's recruiting classes and the foundational coaching that the team had received. It is not hard to believe that Sark may have had a long and successful run in Seattle.

 

[CrimsonDisciple]

Not to be overly confrontational, but this is bullshit. You're just making excuses and giving your own false narrative if I'm reading this correctly (I have a hard time understanding what this massive wall of text is trying to argue).

WSU recruiting under Leach is, by the numbers, among the worst in the Pac-12 over his tenure. Certainly in the bottom 1/3. Yes, he's flipped some players, and many of his recruits have offers from other Power 5 schools, but that's not unique to him or not reflected in his classes' ranks or his recruits' rankings. Same thing happens at other schools who rank in the same area or more highly.

Instead, what you call false, the point that he's done a great job at talent evaluation, instead is true. He's also done a great job at developing players, coaching, recruiting for needs, having an offense that overcomes skill disparities, having his players stay healthy, and getting players with the correct mindset to execute for him and win.

If his classes rank 40th-60th nationally, it is what it is. Your argument about the Pac-12 improving its recruiting such that the same classes would have ranked from 23rd to 33rd, and from 4th to 7th in the Pac-10, has no backing.

A couple things that I think you may be trying to say, though, that (i) many three-star recruits, especially high three-star recruits, are quite good, and/or (ii) Leach has classes full of legitimate Pac-12 athletes, even if they don't rank highly within the Pac-12 (or nationally), I agree completely. His classes are full of legitimate Pac-12 players, most of which have other Power 5 offers. In this regard, his recruiting is good enough to win and much better than what we were seeing a decade ago. I think it's fair to say he and his staff are good recruiters given the situation. All of that BS about the rankings being inaccurate somehow, though, or claiming that he is a "very good" recruiter because he flipped a couple kids from other Power 5 schools, is just that. The recruiting is solid but not great and its place in the Pac-12 is accurate, just going by the numbers/rankings and ignoring his apparently superior talent evaluation (which, I believe, would miss the point).

We averaged 9th place (Pac-12) in recruiting rankings since 2013. Many of the kids he’s getting are from Florida and the Deep South. Those kids often turn out to have a much higher value than what they are ranked. There is a reason that the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 are destroying the PAC 12. Football is pumping out better players in the Deep South, Texas and Florida. It appears that many of the 3 star kids we’re getting from that area would be ranked much higher in a California school.

 

[425cougfan]

We averaged 9th place (Pac-12) in recruiting rankings since 2013. Many of the kids he’s getting are from Florida and the Deep South. Those kids often turn out to have a much higher value than what they are ranked. There is a reason that the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 are destroying the PAC 12. Football is pumping out better players in the Deep South, Texas and Florida. It appears that many of the 3 star kids we’re getting from that area would be ranked much higher in a California school.

Yes, give me a recruit from Texas, Florida, or the South over most California recruits with the same rating most of the time. (Not true in all cases, of course. Some of those California recruits are great.)

Also, I think Leach's class rankings are hurt to a small extent by the Air Raid leading him to focus on some players who aren't as loved by recruiting analysts as they are for what he wants to do.

My post stands for what it was saying, though, which is that while we can look at many factors beyond the raw numbers, the raw numbers are what they are, and Leach's class rankings have been in the lower 1/3 (or even the lowest 1/4, as you note). Rather than trying to pretend it's not true, to try to claim that it's not hard to recruit players to Pullman over other places, or to claim that much of Leach's success doesn't owe to talent evaluation, let's be honest about all aspects of the analysis. As I wrote, he's clearly improved recruiting and it's good, solidly Pac-12 level. I have no complaints about it other than that I'd like to see it taken up a couple notches to make us solidly in the running for titles on a consistent basis (imagine the current team with some more talented CBs and a monster or two on the DL). This year, his recruiting may be good enough to win a title, which is flat-out amazing. But let's not pretend our competition isn't out there getting players that -- once more, by the numbers -- aren't equivalent or significantly better. To write it a third time, I'm referring just to the numbers in making that point, and I not only agree that we should look beyond them, but I've argued it myself.

 

[Cougsocal]

And this is why Walden is an 0-12 coach in his last year.

Recruiting is not a watering hole.

Recruiting is building relationships, and opportunities.

USC has better recruiting relationships and boasts better opportunities. That's why they recruit well.
Oregon better recruiting relationships (Nike), boasts better opportunities (fancy Nike Uniforms). That's why they recruit well.

We had a Graduate Transfer to Alabama. Tell Nick Saban he wasn't coming and choose us.

Why did we get that? Building a relationship, and creating an opportunity for a player like Minshew.

It's not a watering hole. That is like the most loser way of thinking. That's like Wulff saying "Well you can't recruit Lineman to Pullman" BULLSH*T TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULLSH*T.

If that were the case we wouldn't be stonewalling rushes and D-Line with our national award nominated O-line.

As the recruiter YOU are the one who brings the talent to the program. YOU have to go out find them, evaluate, and convince them to come. YOU do that. They don't just come to you. YOU have to go get them.

If you are lazy and expect them to just walk through the door. You are an idiot. a 0-10 Walden idiot

Stop acting like a truculent 13 year school girl.

I won't dignify the "recruiting is all about relationship," comment with a response, particularly from the guy, you, who is the prime defender on this board of our "need" to spend 100 million on upgrades to improve recruiting. Try to have some sense of intellectual honest. We all know, had I attributed the watering hole comment to Mike Price, Mike Leach or anyone who isn't on your shite list, you'd have agreed with it.

 

[Cougatron]

Yes, give me a recruit from Texas, Florida, or the South over most California recruits with the same rating most of the time. (Not true in all cases, of course. Some of those California recruits are great.)

Also, I think Leach's class rankings are hurt to a small extent by the Air Raid leading him to focus on some players who aren't as loved by recruiting analysts as they are for what he wants to do.

My post stands for what it was saying, though, which is that while we can look at many factors beyond the raw numbers, the raw numbers are what they are, and Leach's class rankings have been in the lower 1/3 (or even the lowest 1/4, as you note). Rather than trying to pretend it's not true, to try to claim that it's not hard to recruit players to Pullman over other places, or to claim that much of Leach's success doesn't owe to talent evaluation, let's be honest about all aspects of the analysis. As I wrote, he's clearly improved recruiting and it's good, solidly Pac-12 level. I have no complaints about it other than that I'd like to see it taken up a couple notches to make us solidly in the running for titles on a consistent basis (imagine the current team with some more talented CBs and a monster or two on the DL). This year, his recruiting may be good enough to win a title, which is flat-out amazing. But let's not pretend our competition isn't out there getting players that -- once more, by the numbers -- aren't equivalent or significantly better. To write it a third time, I'm referring just to the numbers in making that point, and I not only agree that we should look beyond them, but I've argued it myself.

Well remember you can recruit the best 25 you can get. Numerous 5 star kids don’t pan out. For example Max Browne is doing YouTube videos while Luke Falk collects a NFL check this year.

1/3 of 5 stars make it in FBS
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/5-star-recruits-last-decade/

And 37 of NFL PRO BOWL players were 3 star recruits or less
https://m.herosports.com/news/nfl-pro-bowl-players-3-star-college-football-recruits

While recruiting rankings offer some information they aren’t exactly accurate in telling the future.

Basically if you are at the bottom bottom in recruiting (bottom 25%) in FBS you more than likely are trash. Because either A) your roster is full of people nobody knew about or evaluated or B) your roster is full of trash players. The only way you are exceeding expectations is if you did A) and they were mostly studs. That’s rare. Unbelievably rare and pretty much impossible because of you were to do that for like 1-2 years then everyone would pay attention and they wouldn’t be hidden anymore.

So we can say if you are in the bottom 25% recruiting in FBS you probably are trash.

Now the top 25% is interesting because on paper it looks good, but as I showed earlier. Only 1/3 of 5 stars make it.

So the only way to be front loaded with 5 stars is to recruit a lot of them. Consistently. (Like Alabama / Georgia / USC)

You take 25 mostly 5-4 stars. 1/3 make it (7/-8)

You do that 4 years in a row and you’ve got 28-32 4/5 stars who can play. Essentially a two deep.

But still as we have seen with a USC or Texas in the past, Michigan before Harbaugh, Florida post Meyer.

You have to have a Coach who knows what to do with them because if not it is mediocreville population University of YOU.

And this is where Leach sort of beats the odds. By creating his structure and competition players cycle in no matter the ranking and the best players play.

This is why we have someone like Robert Lewis (great player contributed immensely as a 5th year senior, take a back seat to Calvin/Harris/Bell). The standards increase as better players come in.

So as long as Leach keeps recruiting in the top half of FBS and cycles in the best he can get we’ll have a roster of mostly 3 stars playing above their ranking because that’s what it takes to start.

 

[Cougatron]

Stop acting like a truculent 13 year school girl.

I won't dignify the "recruiting is all about relationship," comment with a response, particularly from the guy, you, who is the prime defender on this board of our "need" to spend 100 million on upgrades to improve recruiting. Try to have some sense of intellectual honest. We all know, had I attributed the watering hole comment to Mike Price, Mike Leach or anyone who isn't on your shite list, you'd have agreed with it.

Jim Walden is t r a s h. T r a s h. He sucked as a coach SUCKED loser at two programs.

 

[Cougsocal]

We averaged 9th place (Pac-12) in recruiting rankings since 2013. Many of the kids he’s getting are from Florida and the Deep South. Those kids often turn out to have a much higher value than what they are ranked. There is a reason that the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 are destroying the PAC 12. Football is pumping out better players in the Deep South, Texas and Florida. It appears that many of the 3 star kids we’re getting from that area would be ranked much higher in a California school.

No one says Mike Leach isn't finding talent (he is a great talent evaluation). He just isn't getting our talent by winning many recruiting battles (AKA recruiting). According to this site, we finished 10th, 12th, 10th, 11th and 11th in the conference in recruiting between 2013 and 2017,dead last on aggregate, and this site isn't an outlier, its consensus. We are winning because he can flat out coach better than virtually anyone today, and readily finds quality talent missed by the other P-5 schools. However, in that 5 year stretch he sign just 5 4 star recruits (USC with a joke of a coach signed 5 5 star kids this year alone). Things may be changing. This year's class was his best at #8. A Mike Leach who can start winning more recruiting battles than he loses, in addition too being an elite coach and talent evaluator already, would be downright unstoppable. That's the elusive trifecta of the coaching business.

 

[mikalalas]

425, Chip, my post was to those coug fans, others who have said that Leach's recruiting has SUCKED, because ranked 11th out of Pac 12, etc.

I am not arguing against the rankings. The rankings are what they are.

What I am arguing against, saying something like "Leach is a terrible recruiter, because his recruiting classes have been ranked 40th to 60th, and 11th out of Pac 12.

Theoretically WSU, Leach could recruit almost all 4 star players, and still be ranked 40th to 60th, 11th out of Pac 12, because the Top 39, nationally could theoretically recruit almost all 5 stars, and the top 10 Pac 12 teams could theoretically recruit almost all 5 stars, and if that were to happen, some would say, "see WSU, Leach recruiting SUCKS, because WSU 40th to 60th, 11th in Pac 12, ignoring WSU's 4 star recruits.

That is why shouldnt look at ONLY the rankings, shouldnt say "WSU, Leach recruiting sucks, because 40th to 60th, 11th out of Pac 12"

Instead you look at things like "Oh WSU, Leach has A LOT OF 3,4 STARS, so WSU Leach recruiting good, no matter what the actual recruiting ranking is"

Or "WSU, Leach is flipping, beating out a lot of good programs, for 3,4 star recruits, so WSU leach recruiting good no matter what ranking is"

Or "WSU, Leach, sure is having a lot of 2,3 star recruits, upgraded to 4 star rankings, so WSU, Leach recruiting good no matter what ranking is".

Now Theoretically, if WSU recruited a Lot of 1,2 star recruits, was ranked 25th to 50th, 5th out of Pac 12.

It would be wrong to say, WSU sure is recruiting good, because of higher ranking.

Instead one would, should say "WSU recruiting SUCKS because it only recruiting 1,2 stars, no matter how good, high WSU recruiting ranking is"

Now I said theoretically, because a WSU recruiting class, filled with 1,2 stars would not be highly ranked.

The person of course that is most guilty of seeing Leach's 40th to 60th, 11th out of Pac 12, and saying "That Sucks", is COUG ED, who wrongly, illogically tried to argue that WSU wasnt going to have success because of Leach's Classes that had a LOT OF 3,4 STAR RECRUITS, that ranked 40th to 60th, 11th out of Pac 12, were supposedly bad because of recruiting class ranking.

I, others knew WSU, Leach had good recruiting classes, be successful because of:

Lots of 3,4 stars

Beat out good programs for recruits

Flipped recruits from good programs

Good programs offered recruits

Recruits were upgraded to 4 stars.

Those things made recruiting classes good no matter what ranking.

 

[mikalalas]

I think some of you who think Leach only a good evaluator, and not a good recruiter are not remembering all the many high end 3 stars, low end 4 stars WSU, Leach has had according to Rivals, Scout, 247, ESPN,etc.

And are not remembering all the MANY, LOTS OF RECRUITING BATTLES, Leach WON over GOOD PROGRAMS for high end Rivals 5.6 ranked, 3 stars, 5.7 ranked, low end 4 stars.

So in another comment I am going to try to remember, post all the many 4 stars, high end 3 stars, and encourage any and all of you to participate, to make this point.

 

[mikalalas]

Total technical 4 stars, whether clear 4 star 5.8, 5.9 like Gabe Marks, or whether upgraded to 4 star like Patrick Utchinski, or 5.7 borderline 3,4 stars, are, is 37

So 37 technical 4 star recruits over Leach's 7 year Tenure.

That's about 5, 4, technical 4 star recruits, commits, LOI, etc, per year

That's a lot more 4 stars then even Mike Price

Truly a awesome level of recruiting never seen before at WSU

But Hey 37 4 stars is SUCKY BAD RECRUITING AND IS NOT BEING MORE THEN A GOOD EVALUATOR, AND IS NOT BEING GOOD AT RECRUITING HIGHER STAR RANKING 5.7,5.8, 5.9, 4, FOUR STAR TALENT

NOT


4 Stars: 10

Gabe Marks

Jamire Calvin

Drue Jackson

Rodrick Fisher

Tyler Brugman

Tyler Hilinski

Cammon Cooper

Anthony White

Alex Mitchell

Thomas Toki(was technically recruited, committed, signed, LOI, etc, just didnt make it in, had to go JC route,etc)



Borderline 3,4 stars, some recruit service say 3 stars, some say 4 stars: 17


Borghi

James Williams

Brandon Gray 5.7(rival recruit evaluation rank number)(5.7 considered borderline 3,4 star, 5.8 is 4 star)

Utchinski(upgraded) to 4 stars

Halid Djabril 5.7

Connor Neville 5.7

Joshua Talbot 5.7

Mason Vinyard 5.7

Hunter Dale 5.7

Kameron Powell 5.7

Keith Harrington 5.7

Daquan Brown 5.7

Ivan Mc Lennan 5.7

Paulo Lepua 5.7

Jeremiah Allison 5.7

Niu Sale 5.7

Robert Lewis 5.7



Thats just the tip of the iceberg

Probably about 1 to 4 more 4 stars

Probably 1 to 4 more borderline 3,4 stars

My specific memory of specific players is apparently not that good, but I am sure there are probably other 4 stars, borderline 3,4 stars, high end 3 stars, I am not remembering.

I'll try to look up, post some more.

Or some of you with either better memory or look up ability can add to what I have already posted.

 

[mikalalas]

Also on a sidenote to those who complain about length of my post.

Some to almost a lot of you have posted a couple, few, some post, comments, LONGER, then mine, with giant run on block of text.

Most of my comments, the text, words, sentences, paragraphs, etc, are SPACED out for better READABILITY.

That can make my post, comments technically longer, seem longer.

But if I were to scrunch up all text, words, sentences, paragraphs into 1 block of text, with no spacing, my comments, post, would probably be shorter, then a lot of the long post I have seen by others.

 

[mikalalas]

Yes, give me a recruit from Texas, Florida, or the South over most California recruits with the same rating most of the time. (Not true in all cases, of course. Some of those California recruits are great.)

Also, I think Leach's class rankings are hurt to a small extent by the Air Raid leading him to focus on some players who aren't as loved by recruiting analysts as they are for what he wants to do.

My post stands for what it was saying, though, which is that while we can look at many factors beyond the raw numbers, the raw numbers are what they are, and Leach's class rankings have been in the lower 1/3 (or even the lowest 1/4, as you note). Rather than trying to pretend it's not true, to try to claim that it's not hard to recruit players to Pullman over other places, or to claim that much of Leach's success doesn't owe to talent evaluation, let's be honest about all aspects of the analysis. As I wrote, he's clearly improved recruiting and it's good, solidly Pac-12 level. I have no complaints about it other than that I'd like to see it taken up a couple notches to make us solidly in the running for titles on a consistent basis (imagine the current team with some more talented CBs and a monster or two on the DL). This year, his recruiting may be good enough to win a title, which is flat-out amazing. But let's not pretend our competition isn't out there getting players that -- once more, by the numbers -- aren't equivalent or significantly better. To write it a third time, I'm referring just to the numbers in making that point, and I not only agree that we should look beyond them, but I've argued it myself.

This is a good example of what I am talking about.

Space out your sentences, paragraphs with spaces, breaks, like my comments, post, and this comment, post would probably be longer.

So because of that you hypocritically complain

 

[mikalalas]

Not to be overly confrontational, but this is bullshit. You're just making excuses and giving your own false narrative if I'm reading this correctly (I have a hard time understanding what this massive wall of text is trying to argue).

WSU recruiting under Leach is, by the numbers, among the worst in the Pac-12 over his tenure. Certainly in the bottom 1/3. Yes, he's flipped some players, and many of his recruits have offers from other Power 5 schools, but that's not unique to him or not reflected in his classes' ranks or his recruits' rankings. Same thing happens at other schools who rank in the same area or more highly.

Instead, what you call false, the point that he's done a great job at talent evaluation, instead is true. He's also done a great job at developing players, coaching, recruiting for needs, having an offense that overcomes skill disparities, having his players stay healthy, and getting players with the correct mindset to execute for him and win.

If his classes rank 40th-60th nationally, it is what it is. Your argument about the Pac-12 improving its recruiting such that the same classes would have ranked from 23rd to 33rd, and from 4th to 7th in the Pac-10, has no backing.

A couple things that I think you may be trying to say, though, that (i) many three-star recruits, especially high three-star recruits, are quite good, and/or (ii) Leach has classes full of legitimate Pac-12 athletes, even if they don't rank highly within the Pac-12 (or nationally), I agree completely. His classes are full of legitimate Pac-12 players, most of which have other Power 5 offers. In this regard, his recruiting is good enough to win and much better than what we were seeing a decade ago. I think it's fair to say he and his staff are good recruiters given the situation. All of that BS about the rankings being inaccurate somehow, though, or claiming that he is a "very good" recruiter because he flipped a couple kids from other Power 5 schools, is just that. The recruiting is solid but not great and its place in the Pac-12 is accurate, just going by the numbers/rankings and ignoring his apparently superior talent evaluation (which, I believe, would miss the point).

Another LONG post of yours complaining about length of my post

 

[Cougatron]

Long posts are fine. I’d rather people think and discuss in depth than just. “Blah blah Huck the fuskies! Minshew is good. Run the ball leach!”

That to me is just lazy fan discussion. The board here is basically the best in depth discussion board probably out there.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Good God man

 

[Glad Cougar]

For me, the better metric of recruiting success is at the end of a player's college career, not before he takes his first snap. A few of those 4-stars either never made it into school or didn't pan out. Several 2-stars end up being great Cougar players. The odds are that a higher ranked recruit will end up being a better player, but it's a lot easier to look back and know for sure how good a recruiting class actually turns out. With the successful seasons Leach has had recently, I'm satisfied with the level of recruiting even though I know it can get even better.

Glad Cougar

 

[fingerdisco]

425, Chip, my post was to those coug fans, others who have said that Leach's recruiting has SUCKED, because ranked 11th out of Pac 12, etc.

I am not arguing against the rankings. The rankings are what they are.

What I am arguing against, saying something like "Leach is a terrible recruiter, because his recruiting classes have been ranked 40th to 60th, and 11th out of Pac 12.

Theoretically WSU, Leach could recruit almost all 4 star players, and still be ranked 40th to 60th, 11th out of Pac 12, because the Top 39, nationally could theoretically recruit almost all 5 stars, and the top 10 Pac 12 teams could theoretically recruit almost all 5 stars, and if that were to happen, some would say, "see WSU, Leach recruiting SUCKS, because WSU 40th to 60th, 11th in Pac 12, ignoring WSU's 4 star recruits.

That is why shouldnt look at ONLY the rankings, shouldnt say "WSU, Leach recruiting sucks, because 40th to 60th, 11th out of Pac 12"

Instead you look at things like "Oh WSU, Leach has A LOT OF 3,4 STARS, so WSU Leach recruiting good, no matter what the actual recruiting ranking is"

Or "WSU, Leach is flipping, beating out a lot of good programs, for 3,4 star recruits, so WSU leach recruiting good no matter what ranking is"

Or "WSU, Leach, sure is having a lot of 2,3 star recruits, upgraded to 4 star rankings, so WSU, Leach recruiting good no matter what ranking is".

Now Theoretically, if WSU recruited a Lot of 1,2 star recruits, was ranked 25th to 50th, 5th out of Pac 12.

It would be wrong to say, WSU sure is recruiting good, because of higher ranking.

Instead one would, should say "WSU recruiting SUCKS because it only recruiting 1,2 stars, no matter how good, high WSU recruiting ranking is"

Now I said theoretically, because a WSU recruiting class, filled with 1,2 stars would not be highly ranked.

The person of course that is most guilty of seeing Leach's 40th to 60th, 11th out of Pac 12, and saying "That Sucks", is COUG ED, who wrongly, illogically tried to argue that WSU wasnt going to have success because of Leach's Classes that had a LOT OF 3,4 STAR RECRUITS, that ranked 40th to 60th, 11th out of Pac 12, were supposedly bad because of recruiting class ranking.

I, others knew WSU, Leach had good recruiting classes, be successful because of:

Lots of 3,4 stars

Beat out good programs for recruits

Flipped recruits from good programs

Good programs offered recruits

Recruits were upgraded to 4 stars.

Those things made recruiting classes good no matter what ranking.

You need to do a little homework before you go flying off the handle Mik—given that there are roughly 400 4 and 5 star recruits each year (about 30 of those would be 5star), it’s not mathematically possible for the top 39 nationally and top 10 P12 teams to recruit mostly 5 star players, not even If you threw in the 4 stars with the 5s. Hell, there’s barely enough 5s for the top 5 blue bloods to get 5 or 6. While a WSU 40-50 class ranking doesn’t mean those players suck, there is without a doubt a difference between what we’re getting and the top feeders are getting.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Most of you guys are simply talking past each other, while not seeming to recognize that you are mostly saying the same things.

CML evaluates and coaches as well as any HC in the P5. I think there is general agreement on that.

The rankings themselves are highly subjective and frequently do not withstand contact with reality...just look at teams that have consistently landed highly ranked classes but don't win consistently. Or look at team success over a period of years relative to recruiting rankings during the same period. You might find some things to point to in a highly general sense, but there are as many exceptions as there are things supporting the conventional wisdom. One thing that seems clear: the impact of evaluation and coaching is much greater than the impact of recruiting rankings. Hard to see it any other way.

CML does not get every kid whom he offers. And it is possible that he doesn't bother to go after certain kids whom he may have been willing to recruit if he thought his chances were better. But clearly, he manages to fill a class every year with kids who can win. And as the success trend continues upward, the rest of the pieces will fall into place more consistently. It is all self-reinforcing, and to a great extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[425cougfan]

Another LONG post of yours complaining about length of my post

I understand why you'd think that. Others may disagree, but the problem with your posts isn't length ... the issue is that they excessively break out the sentences into their own, rather than using a more conventional paragraph structure. Combine that with a little bit of an unusual writing style and it's just hard to read them. It's just a big wall of sentences that sometimes flow together, and should be in a paragraph, and sometimes could stand on their own.

Not trying to be a jerk or make this an English message board, just saying it would be great to improve them if you can so people can read them and engage. No biggie. Go Cougs.